Divided groups need leadership: A study of the effectiveness of collective identity, dual identity, and intergroup relational identity rhetoric

Abstract

Reducing intergroup conflict is a significant leadership challenge. Leaders can alleviate conflict by promoting a collective, dual, or intergroup relational identity, but they should avoid provoking subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. Drawing on intergroup leadership theory, we conducted an experiment (N = 184) examining evaluations of a leader who promoted a dual, collective, or intergroup relational identity under low or high subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. We hypothesized that identity distinctiveness threat would improve evaluations of a leader promoting an intergroup relational identity, and worsen evaluations of a leader promoting a collective identity. Although a leader promoting a dual identity is typically preferred to one promoting a collective identity, we expected a leader promoting dual identity to receive worse evaluations than a leader promoting an intergroup relational identity. These hypotheses were supported, providing additional support for intergroup leadership theory and demonstrating the utility of employing intergroup relational identity rhetoric.

Resolving the Artisan Entrepreneur’s Oppositional Identity With Venturing in a Declining City Context

“…This comports with other researchers' observations of how artisan entrepreneurs are often uninterested in the kind of entrepreneurship so often glorified in Western culture, mainly in laudatory accounts of tiny businesses started from scratch that grew into booming success stories or were so successful as to be snatched up by giant competitors, always with heroic founding entrepreneurs becoming fabulously wealthy (Luckman, 2018;Tregear, 2005). This also comports with predictable reactions to identity distinctiveness threat (Kershaw, Rast, Hogg, & van Knippenberg, 2021). That is, artisan entrepreneurs know they are part of the larger, general population of entrepreneurs and small-business owners, but their strong identity as artisan entrepreneurs serves as a distinction they prefer and rely on for sensemaking.…”

“…The declining city's relative lack of some resources may be less an issue for the artisan entrepreneur who augments purely local commerce with internet-enabled commerce. Future research should investigate this more, taking care to note if, in fact, such activity remains truly consistent with the artisan entrepreneur's oppositional identity versus presenting identity distinctiveness threats with associated problematic effects (Kershaw et al, 2021).…”

“…That is, artisan entrepreneurs know they are part of the larger, general population of entrepreneurs and small-business owners, but their strong identity as artisan entrepreneurs serves as a distinction they prefer and rely on for sensemaking. Thus, lumping them together with other kinds of entrepreneurs without due recognition of their artisan nature represents an identity distinctiveness threat that is bound to spur their claims of oppositional identity-related contrasts (Kershaw et al, 2021).…”

Can developmental culture enhance team service innovation? Quantitative and qualitative analyses in the hospitality industry

“…In hospitality organizations, employees from teams with high aggregated creative role identity have a collective belief that their teams are creative (Wang and Zhu, 2011); therefore, they make more effort to innovate team services. Moreover, as individuals tend to value their team identities and behave consistently to preserve such identities (Kershaw et al, 2021), employees from hospitality teams with high aggregated creative role identity are inclined to constantly engage in team service innovation to preserve this team identity. Therefore, aggregated creative role identity fosters team service innovation.…”

Add fuel to the fire: investigating the relationship between leader group prototypicality and intergroup conflict

“…leader group prototypicality in this study) would lead to intergroup conflict. Although scholars have emphasised the possibility that strong ingroup leadership can lead to intergroup bias (Carter et al, 2020;Homan et al, 2020;Kershaw et al, 2020;Pittinsky and Pittinsky, 2009), scant empirical studies have examined its mechanisms and contextual factors in detail. This is likely to result in a limited understanding of its effects and an excessive emphasis on strong ingroup leadership as an important premise of effective leadership.…”